AFR

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

1. This appeal has arisen out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.06.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption) South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Special Case No. 01/2015. The trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :-

(All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.)

2. Brief facts of the case as unfolded from the impugned judgment is that the complainant Ganesh Ram Pradhan, aged 38 years, son of late Shri Beniram Pradhan, is posted as an Assistant Veterinary Area Officer at the Bhairamgarh hospital, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh submitted an application on 20.05.2014 seeking a GPF advance of Rs. 1,50,000/- for his marriage, and was verbally informed that Rs. 1,32,000/- was approved. Upon receiving the sanctioned amount from Dr. Narayan Prasad Pandey, Deputy Director of Veterinary Services on 12.06.2014, the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000, refusing to pay voluntarily, on 16.06.2014, the complainant lodged a written complaint vide Ex. P/14 with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Jagdalpur, and subsequently he recorded the accused demanding Rs. 5,000/- as the first installment of the bribe on a digital voice recorder on 18.06.2014, and presented the remaining Rs. 5,000/- along with the recording Exs. P/01–P03 to the ACB, which formed a trap team. With authorization from the District Magistrate vide Ex. P/21 and in the presence of witnesses, the trap was executed using 10 notes of Rs. 500/- i.e., Rs. 5,000/- coated with phenolphthalein powder vide Ex. P/04 to confirm the bribe transaction in which the complainant handed Rs. 5,000/- to the accused at his official residence, after which the trap team intervened and seized the bribe notes. The accused’s hands tested positive for residual bribe money using sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink, confirming the transaction.

3. During the subsequent course of investigation, relevant evidence, including the bribe money, digital voice recorder, washcloths, mobile phone, and BTR, was seized (Exhibits P5–P13), spot maps and forensic reports were obtained (Exhibits P17, P25), and prosecution sanction was granted (Exhibit P19).

4. After completion of the usual investigation, on the basis of the material contained in the charge sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 7A, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, establishing that the accused, in his official capacity, demanded and accepted a bribe.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. In his defence, the appellant adduced 05 witnesses.

6. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary on record, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellant.

7. Assailing the correctness and validity of the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment and findings are based on shaky and unreliable evidence, contrary to the material on rec